Main menu

Kirstie Alley: Don't Make Fun of Scientology

Kirstie Alley, a well-known member of Hollywood's Scientology clan, had her lawyer sent off a letter to gossip mag UsWeekly, demanding that they drop one of their fashion critics over a quip she made about Scientology.

In the January 7, 2008 issue of UsWeekly, fashion critic Danico Lo critiqued a silver suit that Nicole Kidman wore to the Golden Compass premiere. Commenting on the outfit in the "Fashion Police" section she said: "Bonus: This specially designed suit repels Scientologists."

Nicole Kidman was once married to Tom Cruise, arguably the world's most famous Scientologist. The two divorced in 2001, after nearly a decade of marriage. Catholic born Nicole never embraced Tom's religion.

In a letter sent to UsWeekly, Kirstie Alley's lawyer, Barry Felsen, wrote:

"Ms. Lo should be discharged for her narrow-minded comment. You should apologize and commit to a thorough examination of why you have chosen to foster animosity and bias against Scientologists."

Apparently he and Kirstie recognize that the comment was "attempting to be sarcastic and funny", but says that the comment "[perpetuates] the unfair prejudice against Scientologists."

"Would you have published this comment if it were Jews, Muslims or Christians who were singled out for ridicule by Ms. Lo? Scientology's principal difference from these other religions is its age, which apparently you feel gives you license to publish unfair and bigoted statements about its followers," her lawyer continued.

Here's a thought Kirstie: Get over it! The reason people pick on the so-called "religion" of Scientology is not its age, but rather, the fact that it was made up by a science fiction writer.

Danico Lo has so far not publicly issued a comment on the situation, but we're pretty sure one's coming soon.

Latest News:

Comments

Julie, what source did you find to be helpful? A sister, parent, teacher, perhaps a girl scout leader or a college professor? Now, consider for a microsecond that every news on the planet chooses to make fun of that person, the organization they belong to, etc., etc. Okay, Now, GET OFF IT!

Terryeo, you sound tired and a bit testy. Get some rest. You've been working 24/7 trying to hold the line for OSA. There's just too much stuff out there. You can't be everywhere. You're human, you know, and have physical needs.(sorry -- is that an insult to you? Hope not.) You gotta eat. Gotta sleep. Need some recreation, some downtime... it's normal. Have a glass of wine & kick back for a few, okay? You're grumpy.

It really is hard to have a tough skin. We've all had to put up with the occasional joke about our ethnic and religious groups, and it irritates us, too. They're not nice, but they're out there, and we all have to keep an even keel. People tease speaking generally, but individuals will be kind to other individuals and apologize if you nicely tell them they've hurt your feelings.

This is a tough time for you. I don't want to hurt your feelings, or Kirstie's, or anyone's. Look, that was a hurtful thing to say -- it implies that someone would WANT to keep all Scientologists away from them, and that's unkind. But the general public is a little annoyed, a little afraid, and a lot skeptical toward CoS.

CoS taught Tom Cruise a whole goofy kind of pseudo-language, gave him the impression that the group was about to conquer the world, made him into a posterboy. CoS hasn't been very nice to critics; why so paranoid? Ignore them! Now, the bill for that stuff has all come due. You get treated how you get treated, depending on how you come across to people, and there's not much anyone can do to combat group perception, you know? Golden rule, right?

It is what it is. Be nice. Sincerely tell us the whole truth of what you're about. If it's tolerant of NON-Scientologists, they'll be tolerant of you. Period. That's how it works!

She really believes Scientology is saving the world, yet she does not look outside of the smoke screen of her cult to see the damage her 'Church of Money' brings into families.

Factual reports of broken families are everywhere on Internet.

There is even a forum of ex scientologists (http://forum.exscn.net) where the truth of the cult abuses is clearly exposed by the victims in all its sadness, in an attempt for them to heal and come back to the real word and a normal life.

I know her cult forbids her to look at reality, to talk to abused people and former members – no wonder why: the Truman Show must go on.

Your lack of scholarship is evidenced by implying that L Ron Hubbard was only a science fiction writer.

Had you done any research, you'd have discovered he was also a Master Mariner licensed to sail any vessel in any water, was a member of New York's prestigious Explorer's Club that only accepts members who have made contributions to society in the area of new explorations. (Hubbard twice carried the Explorer's Flag on expeditions.) For the US Navy he conducted the Alaskan Radio Experimental Expedition testing out new ways to navigate.

L Ron Hubbard was one of the first licensed air pilots in the United States and his leters to Congressman and Senators in the 1940's helped assure the establishment of the Air Force as a separate entity from other military bodies. He was very well in Congress and the Senate.

Had you done research, you'd have discovered that his breakthroughs in biochemistry has resulted in the most effective drug rehabilitation program in the world, that is now used by Narconon, the largest private drug rehab network in the world. The only ones against it are the psychs and drug industries.

Hubbard's research in criminal rehabilitation is now used in more than 2,200 prisons worldwide, including every prison in Israel because of its spectacular success.

The only organizations that have since 1950 attempted to discredit Hubbard's discoveries because they were correctly recognized as direct threats to their monopolies and vast wealth are the psychiatric and drug industries, followed closely by the AMA that only represents 35 percent of medical doctors but dictates the entire profession and has ALWAYS fought any new development that would reduce the cash flow or reduce the number of hospital beds filled.

Incidentally, had you done any research you'd have known that Science Fiction (as he wrote it in the 1950's) was the literary genre of all the scientists. SciFi is a ficitonal account that contains advanced not yet existing scientific developments. Every major government in the world has a department (in its war intelligence area) that reads every science fiction book to get ideas.

To address just a few of the areas in which this "Guest"'s assertions are false or misleading:

* "[Hubbard] was a member of New York's prestigious Explorer's Club that only accepts members who have made contributions to society in the area of new explorations." The Explorer's Club did not, however, check any of a candidate's claims; Hubbard's application included, for instance, a "pioneering mineralogical survey of Puerto Rico" -- of which neither the US Geological Survey nor the Puerto Rican Department of Natural Resources has any knowledge.

* "For the US Navy he conducted the Alaskan Radio Experimental Expedition testing out new ways to navigate." The "expedition" was not "for the US Navy"; the US Navy had no prior knowledge of Hubbard's trip and did not put that trip under any sort of official designation. Hubbard simply sent the Navy, unsolicited, some notes and some rolls of film and claimed that made it an expedition for the US Navy. Under that sort of logic, the schizophrenic who mails his rambling screed about the messages extraterrestrials are beaming into his head to the White House is "reporting directly to the President."

* "[Hubbard's] breakthroughs in biochemistry has resulted in the most effective drug rehabilitation program in the world, that is now used by Narconon, the largest private drug rehab network in the world." Hubbard claimed some amazing results but what matters in science is not what you claim, but what other scientists can verify. Not one of Hubbard's "breakthroughs" has met this test. Neither is Narconon "the most effective drug rehabilitation program in the world"; while Scientology advertises "studies" which purport to show an amazing success rate, these studies are frequently flawed. An example is the "Swedish study", which claimed that over 75% of Narconon graduates became "drug-free permanently"; however, looking closely, it turns out that people who by their own admission took drugs after finishing the Narconon program were still counted as "drug-free permanently" if they claimed not to be taking drugs at the time they were contacted.

I feel sorry for this Guest, who has accepted without sufficient questioning many of the lies that L. Ron Hubbard told about his life and his achievements. I would highly recommend that he go looking for more information about these amazing things that Hubbard claimed to have achieved, but this time look in more places than just those approved by the Church of Scientology.

LRH writes:
" .... you'd have discovered he was also a Master Mariner ..."
Oh, and a fraud artist whose wife was one of several $cientologists convicted of conspiracy and theft for their role in "Operation Snow White" in the late 1970s. And a sadist. And a well-known liar who claimed military honours he never got. And a guy who told people the best way to make a million is to start a religion. ...
Person using LRH's name, go to lermanet and xenu.net. Find out what a huge scam you've fallen for.
And don't be ashamed. Countless others have fallen for it, too. And sometimes dropped hundreds of thousands to learn "secrets" like the story of Xenu destroying space aliens 75 million years ago. You have to get to OT 3 before they tell you that one.

Sorry to say that's bullshit!
You are parroting the exact propaganda of the cult of Scientology. Go on Google and find the actual military records of L. Ron Hubbard!
Google more and find his fake discoveries.
Even most of the Scientology Bridge did not originated from Hubbard.

Scientologists make lots of outlandish claims about how great L ron was. If you do the research, you'll find his war record was very poor, he was relieved of command twice. He claims combat experience but it is emphatically untrue, navy records prove it.

They claim he was a phycicist, biochemist, etc. but in fact he has no advanced degrees at all. Narconon is a Scientology organization pure and simple. It's Ironic too because L Ron was a known drug abuser, you can see his own writings to his wife. He also sought/received psychological counseling after leaving the navy, even trying for VA benefits.

Scientology is a fairly crass and obvious attempt to make money under the guise of religion, just look at their many legal problems. They are extremely litigous and have an avowed take no prisoners attitude towards any criticism.

In the end, what can you say about a "religion" that requires cash every step of the way? I'm not talking about tithes or donations either, but hard cash for each bit of "counseling" and "revelation" you get. It's a complete scam on the face of it.

Scientologists like this guy try to build this aura around L Ron like he was something special when in fact he was a hack Sci Fi author, and some of his most outlandish work was Dianetics and the crap that followed.

Get over it Julie. People dont criticize scientology just because it was written by a Science Fiction writer. People criticize it because lies have been spread like a disease for decades and the media keeps perpetuating the symptoms of those lies with comments like your shallow minded rant.

There are only approx 2.5% of the population that only deal in lies, deception, death and destruction and only approx 20% would agree with them. The rest are the good guys that can reason and see things like they really are for them selves. The Question really is which side are you on.

Believe what you want, or what you've been taught about Ron Hubbard. He was a smart and persuasive guy with pretensions to or delusions of grandeur. He blew or made that stuff up to puff up his credibility. (My daughter pretended to be the Little Mermaid for about 6 months, and I kind of indulged her at times, but she still had to put on normal clothes to go to school, you know. And she couldn't breathe underwater!)

Public records, eyewitness accounts, and those who knew Hubbard paint a very different picture of who he was. He was a liar, or delusional -- don't know if he believed his own stuff by the end, but it was originally a scheme. I don't like telling you this, honestly. I'm torn between letting you have what makes you happy if it's false, and telling you the truth so you'll be free. Compassion presents tough choices! The truth hurts, sometimes.

I'm the kind of gal who will tactfully but directly tell a girlfriend if I think her hair looks not-so-good, so let me offer the same thing to you.

Look, the world does not agree with you. It is upsetting to be in the minority. (For example, I've had to hear pundits trashing my best choice for president.) Ugh, it makes me mad. I'm free to disregard it, and I turn it off. However, I can't insist everyone agree with me and stop saying stuff that's unpleasant to me. That would be wrong.

They're expressions of opinion. Try to ignore them. You're free to believe what you want, really. You're just not free to stop others from commenting, or pummel them into submission. Sorry.

I'm not a scientologist and I wish I could
change this conversation to one about Christianity
but I went to several Scientology web sites
and think that what it has to offer is very much needed in our world.
They do a lot of good
things. I remember reading something in the Katrina news too
about Scientology crews there and John Travolta going around in
a boat to help. I have a lot of respect for John Travolta and
personally am moved by Tom Cruz's passion for what he believes
in. I did notice that no matter how angry they become in their
subject of passion, they don't lower themselves to the level you
have permitted yourselves to sink. But then that is likely normal
ops for you in daily life. You guys are a bunch of bored
computer nerds with too much time on your hands. I don't care
how far fetched a religion seems or how passionate the
members. But what I read so far was positive and actually quiet
admirable. I found a personality test on one of the sites. I'm
tired tonight but I'm going to take it tomorrow. Interesting. Back
off and get a life okay

Terryeo is a well-known Scientologist, yes, but I think this is simply a troll who has strung together pieces of the names of several well-known Scientologists to make their handle. "Lightfield" is obviously a reference to James Lightfield, and "Churilov" must of course be a reference to Greg Churilov, who posts incessantly in defense of Scientology in between visiting areas of the world hit by natural disasters and taking food and shelter from rather than to the locals hurt by the disaster (see http://www.thestandard.com.hk/stdn/std/Weekend/GA22Jp10.html .) I don't recognize "Arkaitz", "Luana1980", or "Chewyanbert", but they probably are known for the same thing as Terryeo, Lightfield and Churilov.

Comments use a chosen-on-the-spot, editing identity. Therefore comment identities don't last long. For example, "Terryeo" was a wikipedia editing identity and comments on articles. As anonymous has come out of the closet, a number of OBVIOUSLY non-terryeo people head their comments with the "terryeo" identity.

Can any of the scientologists crapping on here provide some REAL proof that doesnt come from the CoS to back up their claims?

I think not.

and the excuse that everyone else is corrupt and hiding the truth about LRH is a joke, remember its your church that make you pay to have the so-called "truth".

Also why isnt there any other religious org apart from the CoS that practice dianetics?

Seems a bit controlling in my eyes, if you practice dianetics shouldnt you call yourself a dianeticlogist rather then a scientologist? (ie. define yourself by what you practice rather then by your church).

Do you have nonscientology source material to back up those claims of the life of L. Ron Hubbard? When I say nonscientology source material, it can't come from front groups like Applied Scholastics or Narconnon.

I admit that I have read with amusement stories about Scientology “Celebrities” Tom Cruise, John Travolta, Kirsty Allie, Katie Holmes, Jenna Elfman, etc. and have been entertained by the snarky comments about them. But, over the past few weeks, as I have learned more about what Scientology leaders have done and how they conduct business it has become less of a joke. Now I view these Scientology “Celebrities” as glossy distraction mere distraction for the masses and media. We are looking at and discussing them instead of what we should really be seeing about Scientology. It is Scientology’s version of “Sleight of Hand.”

Sleight of hand depends on the use of psychology and misdirection in accomplishing a desired effect. Misdirection is perhaps the most important component of the art of sleight of hand. Scientology choreographs their actions so that even the critical and observant spectators are likely to look where Scientology wants them to. (More importantly, they do not look where they should not.)

Seek the information that Scientology does not want you to know. It is out there. It is no joking matter. Make up your own mind.

Who cares what someone thinks about this pseudo-religion? I find the whole idea laughable when it comes so celebrities shilling for a dead sci-fi writer. And why do these overpaid, spoiled babies get so much more for their money than the regular joe who buys into this dreck?

And if this so-called religion and "tech" works, why is Kirstie still battling her weight? Why is Priscilla Presley and her daughter becoming more odd by the minute? Oh, and Tom Cruise, well, his actions speak the loudest. Again, if the CoS works so darned well, why so much odd bahaviour?

They just don't get this axiom. Maybe they can create a new Mockery Resistance Rundown or MRR Grade 0, and charge thousands of dollars for it. It won't work (like most everything else they charge money for) but it'll give us more to mock. Saaaaay, maybe I didn't make that up. Maybe I channeled Elron himself. Yeah, that's it. I'm channeling Elron Hubbard now. Pay me.

Nobody pays me for the time I spend debunking the lies that Scientologists leave on message boards. I just do it because it needs doing; by responding to lies with truth I make the world a better place. I'm sure Scientologists can understand every part of that except the part where they are not the one in possession of the truth; the part where L. Ron Hubbard was just an amoral con man, and not The Friend Of Mankind that he claimed to be.

This Guest's response, though, just goes to show what Scientology really does to a person. If Scientology made you a more able and more intelligent person, Guest would be better able to comprehend the thought processes of people whose opinions differ from his own -- not less able. He would be able to analyze the critic arguments he reads, identify which portions are sound, identify where the error in logic occurs (remember, we are operating in a hypothetical world where Scientology does work) and put forth a cogent line of argumentation which spells out why the argument of the opponent of Scientology is flawed. He'd be capable of that, if he had actually gained what Scientology claims it can provide.

But what is he actually doing? With all his supposed gain in intelligence from auditing and processing, what is his best debating technique? "You're getting paid to attack Scientology! ... I actually have no way of knowing who any of you are, obviously, so I actually have no factual basis for making such an accusation. The fact that I am ready to make an accusation for which I have no factual basis shows to everyone that I am either deeply dishonest or just deeply bigoted."

That's supposed to impress us? Scientologists are supposed to be masters of MEST, and yet they can't actually answer criticism of their religion, they can only take ludicrous shots in the dark alleging their critics to be paid off? Well, jeez, wow, that proves the mighty power of Scientology, it's not like every half-baked idiot movement in the history of the world could get its followers to sprout half-baked idiocy about how its enemies were corrupt lackeys of a -- oh, wait, my mistake, that is something every half-baked idiot movement can and does do.

See, the problem you have is your utter hatred. And that's what shows through. You might have more creditability if there was ray of compassion or concern. If you even had the comfort of any admission whatsoever of what the good work that Scientologists do or that there is any workability or benefit in the tech whatsoever.

It so easy for anyone who even just knows a Scientologist to dismiss your rant. They SEE Scientologists caring, and doing good work, and you know that. I love your intellectual "dismantling" of me, but it's a joke. I have far more non-Scientologist friends than not and none of my family are Scientologists. But they know ME and that garners respect for Scientology that all your figure-figure can't dismantle. It really is that simple.

They remember back in the day when I wasn't myself, but rather an introverted kid on drugs (like a lot of my generation) and when they see today that I can love and communicate and help, and be successful, and lead, it just doesn't add up how the reason for that change can be the target of utter contempt and scorn. even if the reason were to be dismissed as MY reason, it still garners respect to the degree that I garner respect through my care toward them. (And no, that's not necessarily by recruiting them into Scn.)

You really ought to temper a little reasonableness in to your own argument, as you proclaim I am unable to do. It would give you more creditability with anyone who knows a Scientologist. But again, I know that's not likely because your purpose is not compassion. It's blind hatred, as old as history.

I'm sorry, but as long as there are decent people on the world who recognize other decent people and come to their defense, (certainly not a given, though - perhaps your last chance) then Scientologists prevail by caring and working with a clean heart to help others.

You'd gain some creditability if you could admit even a portion of that.

And by the way, not to dismiss the earlier argument, come on, you do know there is money behind attacks on Scientology. Well hidden, but not forever. I can tell you that so many journalists, attorneys, professionals in the related fields will tell me that the war with Big Pharma and Scn is so very well known. They understand that, even if they may be fearful or confused to take sides. And certainly the psychotropic dug makers are certainly not one group to take it lying down. One more way to discredit yourself is to pretend that there is NO money from hidden sources used to attack Scientology. People will certainly buy that one.

Lighten up my friend, concede a couple of points here for the sake of your own creditability.

You complain about money-making cults, but your paymasters remain anonymous.

Easy way to make a living attacking Scientology, isn't it? Maybe if you got a real job, I wouldn't have to work so hard to support my church to defend itself.

And don't pretend to know all about me, or brush me off with your suppressive hateful generalities, and trying to say "nah nah nah, that's what Scientologists do." You don't really know what I do, what I give and you certainly can't acknowledge what I get for it with any kind of open heart about the matter. I see no compassion or concern for any individual in your rant. Not the least acknowledgment for the work Scientologists DO do in this world, even if you disagreed with parts of our creed. How you could disagree with it all can only be explained as the blind rage of hatred, or you never read any creed, or you have never stopped to examine the actual good work of Scientologists, which is precisely why we can win community support and will prevail.

When you can forthrightly answer the question - WHO PAYS YOU TO ATTACK SCIENTOLOGY? - i.e. any of you hired guns, then maybe a dialog can occur.

Payroll Guest, your answer makes no sense. You can't accuse me of having avoided the question when everyone can see I answered it -- at least, you can't do so without proving what I said about Scientology.

Scientology claims to make people more intelligent and better able to deal with the world, but when called upon to do so, what tactics do Scientologists pull out? Not ones that show great intelligence or even normal maturity. The fact that you can't imagine someone speaking out against Scientology for any other reason than because they're getting paid, doesn't show that someone is getting paid -- it shows that Scientology has limited your imagination. When you get a forthright answer to your question, and you act as if you didn't even notice it and talk about awaiting the "next cowardly avoidance of the answer" because you couldn't handle the answer, it shows that Scientology makes people less prepared to handle the world.

Here's something I would never do if I was getting paid to attack Scientology: I'm going to tell you how you can prove to the world that Scientology works. Scientology claims that the procedure it calls "Locational Processing" "can make a drunk person sober in a very few minutes". It would be very easy to set up an experiment where test subjects were given enough alcohol to make them drunk, and then randomly selected to receive either "Locational Processing" or just ordinary talking for a similar amount of time. After a very few minutes, all subjects would be given the standard tests of coordination. If Scientology works, then surely those who had received Locational Processing would score much better on those tests, since they have been made sober in a very few minutes.

But why hasn't it been done before? It's a simple idea that any reasonably intelligent person could come up with, and Clears are supposed to be not just reasonably intelligent but super-intelligent. Such super-intelligent people would know that this was the most effective way to bring people to Scientology: show them evidence that it works, not just accuse anyone who thinks it doesn't work of being paid off. So, if Scientology actually worked, this experiment would have been done and the results trumpeted to the world long ago.

I would never give up the benefits I've received from Word Clearing, Study Tech, and auditing for all the tea in China. Fine if you see no merit. But what right do you have to take it away from me?

If it was up to you, auditing would have to take place in secret and all books by L. Ron Hubbard would be burned. Right? Wouldn't that be your day in the sun? Just imagine a world where no one has the choice to try auditing for themselves or ever read an LRH book and decide for themselves. Wouldn't you be happy now, oh Grand Inquisitor?

I don't need you to approve of Locational processing any more than a Christian needs you to approve of being born again. You can deny it, intellectualize about it all day, but when you've been born again, there no negating it.

You'll dismiss my dismissal of proving it to you as being that "I can't, so let's move on". (Oooo, see that's what Scientologists do...). But I've been sobered up by it and have sobered others up, so I know it works. Just as I know Word Clearing, Study Tech, and auditing work. I just don't have to prove it to you (impossible with your hatred anyway), and you don't have to believe it. That enters in to attacking the religious philosophy and you're probably violating Anon policy by doing such. Get back to attacking the organization now, as tempting as it is to stray.

(Ooooo, see that's what Scientologists do. They fight back, and defend. No one is safe. And anything they say is stupid and makes no sense.) Cut me a little slack here boys, or you just show your fanaticism a little too much. Concede me somthin', eh?

Most interesting! You could answer what I actually said; instead, you seem to be (intentionally?) dragging into the conversation all sorts of red herrings and unwarranted assumptions -- though, of course, it's hardly a surprise to see unwarranted assumptions being made by the person who addressed total strangers and claimed to "know" that they were being paid to "attack" Scientology.

In the portion of your post that comes closer to staying on the subject, you say "I don't need you to approve of Locational processing any more than a Christian needs you to approve of being born again. You can deny it, intellectualize about it all day, but when you've been born again, there no negating it." The question is not whether you, or I, or anyone, approves of the testable proposition "Locational proposition can make a drunk person sober in a few minutes"; the question is whether that testable proposition proves itself in testing. Either it does, or it doesn't; "approval" is not only totally irrelevant but bizarrely so. Do you "approve of" the speed of light in vacuum being 299,792,458 meters per second? Will your disapproving of it make any difference whatsoever? No. Trying to compare it to the untestable proposition "Person X has been 'born again'", and suggesting that they must be treated in equal fashion despite not being all that similar, is like saying "You can't tell me that I'm wrong about gravity only existing during daylight hours! After all, you won't tell Mike that he's wrong to think that Jim Carrey is funny!" Whether Jim Carrey is funny is a matter of opinion; whether gravity ceases to exist when the sun goes down is a testable proposition of fact that, if tested, will be found false and therefore must be treated as false.

Now, you have claimed that you have tested the proposition that Locational Processing sobers people up and found it to be true. I can extend the benefit of the doubt to you, that you believe you observed this. However, there's a reason that I suggested that the proposition be tested by actual scientific experiment, and not by the personal observations of one person (neither you nor me): such observations are notoriously subjective. Many a habitual drunk still believes the old myth that black coffee sobers them up -- not because it actually does, but because the state of being drunk keeps them from recognizing that they have not left the state of being drunk.

If Locational Processing were to be tested in true scientific fashion (control groups and double-blind protocols a must) and it actually passed that testing, and if those scientific results were repeatable, then it would change a lot of minds about Scientology, including mine. Currently science knows of nothing that can accelerate the process of sobering up from intoxication. If Locational Processing were proved to be able to do what nothing else is known to do, it would attract a great deal of attention and bring a great deal of re-evaluation.

If Scientology makes you super-intelligent, then at least some Scientologists must understand how science works. They must understand that they could, in a very easy fashion, establish the scientific verification of Scientology and give it tremendous influence. The only thing that could hold them back is if the testable propositions that Scientology promotes as true, when tested, prove to be false. There's no room for nonsense about "Well, it's like being born again, just as you can't prove someone hasn't been born again you can't prove that the test subject who is stumbling across the room and slurring his words and can't walk a straight line hasn't been sobered up." No amount of meaningless muttering about payrolls will be able to alter the fact that what Scientology claimed it could do, it could not do.

Oh my goodness! You really think all of us are being PAID to criticize, don't you? Seriously? It never occurred to you that maybe there are just a lot of people out there that don't like the way you treat your critics and can't take a joke? That maybe WE feel like YOU (scientologists) are the ones that act in a hateful manor?
Then you talk about all the good things you do, when to many of us it just seems like a ruse to distract from the misdeeds.
But anyway, you go ahead and keep believing that we are all employed by psychologists, the FBI, the FDA, the German government, Stephen Hawking, Elvis, the guy who did the voice for Alf, and my dear old granny. Yes... This is all just one giant conspiracy. Excuse me while I laugh my sinister bad guy laugh and twirl my mustache.
PARANOIA!!!

Could you tell who I have to talk to? I think CoS is the worst things since Hitler and I would love to get paid for telling the truth about it. Just post name and address as it seems you know ALL about who it is.

Some choose to ridicule the things they don't know anything about and don't understand. This holds true for most targeting Scientology I have observed (Andrew Morton included.) These people want to destroy, not build up.

I decided not to follow the flock but to look and think for myself. What I found was the Scientology was fun and very very useful, nothing like the vitriol and bile from the ignorant and bigoted. I have been a member since, with pride I might add, and have not regretted for a second.

Think for yourself is the oldest and healthiest advice anyone could be given. Only then will you discover the truth and this will stand the test of time, while the lies die away like flies!

It just amazes me that a woman who had such a great sense of humor about her struggles with her weight would suddenly lose it over a minor jab at that cult. I'm sorry, but I think that just kind of reinforces the mind control theories.
So, this cult wants to be taken seriously as a religion but then goes running off crying "waaahh, I'm gonna tell my lawyer on you!" anytime someone makes fun of them.
I think an attitude like that makes it hard for people to NOT make fun of them.

Once upon a time I used to get upset if I was accused of something I didn't do, or if I was unjustifiably ridiculed.
But the fact is that just because someone says you're doing something, doesn't mean you are; or if someone labels you or insults you, doesn't mean you are that thing. Only you know if you should be proud or ashamed, no matter what anybody says.
This is and was true before I was in Scientology and since.
But having used Scientology to know myself better, I'm a much stronger person, mentally and emotionally.
I know who I am, what I'm doing, what I'm achieving, and also where my failings are.
I spend my time helping people in all sorts of ways. I see the results. I know my intentions, and I know the workability of Scientology in what I do.
That's something that no punk, no hater, no drug-dealer, no psycho, can ever take away from me by force, by insults, by false accusations and lies or by screaming "protests".
Scientologists, if they have studied their subject well, are almost bullet-proof to ridiculous slander, and they continue to do their best to help those who wish to help themselves.
We live in "interesting times", as the Chinese proverb says. Scientology has been attacked again and again and again since its beginnings with the Dianetics book. That was 58 years ago. Each time it's been attacked, it has eventually won through. It has nothing to hide and nothing to fear and is bigger than ever globally.
Pretty amazing, considering it spreads only by word-of-mouth, really.